Jump to content

      



























Photo

[Victoria] Fire Station #1 | 1234 Yates Street

Civic

  • Please log in to reply
159 replies to this topic

#121 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 02 February 2016 - 12:12 PM

If Victoria uses its debt reduction reserves to build the new firehall, I wonder who will make up the Johnson Street Bridge shortfall.  The firehall expenditure would leave a grand total of 2 million in the reserves.

- See more at: http://www.timescolo...h.TF8ObBCZ.dpuf

 

It's the typical shell game to make it appear to the taxpayer that you are doing something with their money, when in fact all you are doing is putting out fires.... (pun intended)



#122 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 12,701 posts

Posted 02 February 2016 - 07:56 PM

sebberry, on 02 Feb 2016 - 11:47 AM, said:

Because when some drunk kid tries to put out his cigarette on the couch and sets the apartment complex on fire, you want as many resources as possible to respond. 

 

Total call volume might be down, but unless you're equipped to handle the big emergencies you might as well dispatch a neighbour with a garden hose. 

Yeah, that is where your volunteer fire fighters come in. Reduce the full time fire fighters by at least half, convert some of them to full time paramedics, and keep a trained cadre of volunteers on the roster for when the big calls come in.


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#123 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 03 February 2016 - 09:55 AM

It makes great sense, so I don't think it would ever happen. And besides, when the Y leaves their current location you've got a gigantic/catastrophic/horrific issue re: the likely redevelopment of that site into lowrise apartments. Do you want that much blood on your hands?

 

Why would the Y property need to be redeveloped into lowrise apartments? I assumed it would be overrun by slacktivists wanting more handouts.


  • Nparker likes this

#124 J_Loveday

J_Loveday
  • Member
  • 67 posts

Posted 10 February 2016 - 11:47 AM

Update: http://www.timescolo...nt-hq-1.2166136

 

Councillors Young, Isitt, and myself were opposed.

 

I stated that 30 million is too much to spend and I said that I will not approve any new major capital projects until we receive an interim report with lessons learned regarding procurement from the JSB bridge project. We have to make sure we don't make the same mistakes all over again!  


  • Mike K., Baro, tedward and 2 others like this

#125 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 10 February 2016 - 11:52 AM

Update: http://www.timescolo...nt-hq-1.2166136

 

Councillors Young, Isitt, and myself were opposed.

 

I stated that 30 million is too much to spend and I said that I will not approve any new major capital projects until we receive an interim report with lessons learned regarding procurement from the JSB bridge project. We have to make sure we don't make the same mistakes all over again!  

 

Excellent.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#126 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 10 February 2016 - 01:19 PM

Update: http://www.timescolo...nt-hq-1.2166136

 

Councillors Young, Isitt, and myself were opposed.

 

I stated that 30 million is too much to spend and I said that I will not approve any new major capital projects until we receive an interim report with lessons learned regarding procurement from the JSB bridge project. We have to make sure we don't make the same mistakes all over again!  

As long as Council does not approve frivolous expenses such as lawsuits against the Province I am OK with this.



#127 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 10 February 2016 - 01:35 PM

At this point in time do we actually believe that anyone has learned lessons...  "regarding procurement from the JSB bridge project"



#128 sebberry

sebberry

    Resident Housekeeper

  • Moderator
  • 21,503 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 10 February 2016 - 02:20 PM

Update: http://www.timescolo...nt-hq-1.2166136

 

Councillors Young, Isitt, and myself were opposed.

 

I stated that 30 million is too much to spend and I said that I will not approve any new major capital projects until we receive an interim report with lessons learned regarding procurement from the JSB bridge project. We have to make sure we don't make the same mistakes all over again!  

 

 

$30M is too much to spend relative to...?  Infrastructure projects cost money, unfortunately.  Anyone know what the final costs were on the View Royal public safety building and the CFB Esquimalt fire hall?   I suspect $30M is on the upper end of the acceptable range. 

 

We can look back and analyze, or we can ring up Langford or View Royal and ask how they handled their public safety buildings and possibly learn something new in the process.


Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network

Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams

 


#129 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 10 February 2016 - 02:25 PM

I still say we should be looking at a private-public partnership to make a new fire hall & recreation centre financially feasible - and include a market rate residential component if possible.



#130 J_Loveday

J_Loveday
  • Member
  • 67 posts

Posted 10 February 2016 - 03:09 PM

$30M is too much to spend relative to...?  Infrastructure projects cost money, unfortunately.  Anyone know what the final costs were on the View Royal public safety building and the CFB Esquimalt fire hall?   I suspect $30M is on the upper end of the acceptable range. 

 

We can look back and analyze, or we can ring up Langford or View Royal and ask how they handled their public safety buildings and possibly learn something new in the process.

 I should have used the word "authorize" rather than "spend". At this point Council has authorized up to $30-million. I think your research will show that other communities have been able to deliver comparable public safety facilities for much less than $30million. I don't want to authorize the "upper range of acceptable" before receiving the proposals, or the lessons learned from the botched JSB procurement. 

I still say we should be looking at a private-public partnership to make a new fire hall & recreation centre financially feasible - and include a market rate residential component if possible.

Council is open to all proposals including public/private partnerships. 

 

I won't be able to check back on here for a while so please email me if you have any other questions:  jloveday@victoria.ca  


  • Nparker likes this

#131 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 10 February 2016 - 03:12 PM

Great, exactly. Authorizing before knowing the full costs associated with what you need versus what you want sets you up to overspend. It's business 101.

 

Can you imagine walking up to a car dealership and saying "I've got $45,000 to spend, damnit!" You'd be walking out with a $48,000 car that should have cost $34,000 lickity split.


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#132 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 10 February 2016 - 03:50 PM

$30M is too much to spend relative to...? Infrastructure projects cost money, unfortunately. Anyone know what the final costs were on the View Royal public safety building and the CFB Esquimalt fire hall? I suspect $30M is on the upper end of the acceptable range.

We can look back and analyze, or we can ring up Langford or View Royal and ask how they handled their public safety buildings and possibly learn something new in the process.


Well View Royal was originally set to spend more but a citizen counter petition stopped the higher level of spending.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#133 Daveyboy

Daveyboy
  • Member
  • 528 posts

Posted 10 February 2016 - 04:14 PM

Great, exactly. Authorizing before knowing the full costs associated with what you need versus what you want sets you up to overspend. It's business 101.

 

Can you imagine walking up to a car dealership and saying "I've got $45,000 to spend, damnit!" You'd be walking out with a $48,000 car that should have cost $34,000 lickity split.

The problem with this expenditure is that we are spending nearly all of the city debt reduction savings account on it so if there are cost overruns we are in even more trouble financially.


  • Mike K. likes this

#134 weisguy86

weisguy86
  • Member
  • 115 posts

Posted 10 February 2016 - 09:10 PM

Well View Royal was originally set to spend more but a citizen counter petition stopped the higher level of spending.

 

The entire View Royal public safety building including purchasing the property came in under $10M.


  • AllseeingEye and sebberry like this

#135 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 02 November 2016 - 10:37 AM

The City of Victoria confirms it is working with a developer on a plan to replace the #1 firehall. Options include a mixed-use development on an alternate site, or on the existing site.

 

Update on Replacement of Victoria Fire Department Headquarters
November 2, 2016

 

The Victoria Fire Department’s headquarters, also known as Fire Station No. 1, has come to the end of its lifespan and requires replacement. In April, the City of Victoria issued a Request for Qualifications, inviting interested parties to submit responses indicating their interest in and qualifications to replace the current Victoria Fire Department Headquarters at 1234 Yates Street.

 

The Request for Qualifications (RFQ) closed on May 4, 2016. Three submissions were received and have undergone review and evaluation. As outlined in the RFQ, the next step would be to either issue a Request for Proposals to any qualified RFQ respondent or to directly negotiate with one. Based on the evaluation of the submissions, at an in-camera meeting of Council on September 22, 2016, City staff were directed to negotiate with one specific proponent.

 

The intended outcome continues to be a new headquarters/fire station as part of a multi-use development at the best value for taxpayers. Interest expressed to date continues to be confidential.

 

The City of Victoria is looking to partner with a developer to ideally develop a mixed use development encompassing a new Fire Department Headquarters on a suitable site that the developer either already owns or can quickly secure.

 

The City is also willing to consider making available land that it currently owns, including the current site of Fire Station No. 1.

 

In April 2015, the City of Victoria undertook a market sounding process to seek innovative ideas and potential interest in partnering with the City to renovate or replace the Victoria Fire Department's headquarters. Based on the results of this process, in February 2016, City Council approved a multi-stage procurement strategy and directed staff to issue a Request for Qualifications for the replacement of the Victoria Fire Department headquarters, with the intent of providing a multi-use facility that minimizes the cost to the taxpayer.

 

There have been three stages involved in the market sounding process. The first stage was identification of the problem or unmet needs, which led to an innovative, informal market sounding to renovate or replace the Victoria Fire Department headquarters. The second stage was market engagement, which included the market sounding call for ideas, their review, and exploration/consultation to further assess the merit of each idea. The third stage is the current procurement process to advance the replacement of Fire Station No. 1.

 

More: http://www.victoria....adquarters.html


  • Nparker and AllseeingEye like this

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#136 AllseeingEye

AllseeingEye

    AllSeeingEye

  • Member
  • 6,543 posts

Posted 02 November 2016 - 12:37 PM

Excellent news....finally.



#137 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 02 November 2016 - 12:45 PM

Wow, great news. 

 

So, the Audi dealership property is my guess. 


  • Nparker likes this

#138 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 02 November 2016 - 12:50 PM

Hmm, not a bad guess!


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#139 RFS

RFS
  • Member
  • 5,444 posts

Posted 02 November 2016 - 01:15 PM

is a mixed use fire hall something that has actually been succesfully done elsewhere? I don't know if we really want people milling about and cars coming and going when theres an emergency fire call

#140 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 02 November 2016 - 01:17 PM

We had some examples posted on this board not too long ago.

 

Edit: in this very thread.

 

Vancouver

 

Cambridge, UK

 

Neither of those firehalls are particularly large so they might not make for the best comparison re: Victoria's main firehall, but they demonstrate the concept.


Edited by aastra, 02 November 2016 - 01:27 PM.


You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users